For political pot-stirring, it’s hard to top the story that Mayor Bloomberg urged Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for mayor. It has all the elements that tickle New York’s erogenous zones — big names, big money, big surprise.

There’s even a juicy touch of betrayal, with Bloomy’s pledge to back City Council Speaker Christine Quinn suddenly looking shaky. It’s hard not to squirm at the painful description of a New York Times reporter informing Quinn of the call to Clinton, and Quinn’s surprised answer of, “Really?”

Quinn wouldn’t say more, but somebody’s talking and there’s a reason when a private conversation like this one gets out. The intrigue is not diminished by the fact that the call happened several months ago, and that Clinton said no.

Why does the news break now? If there was nothing to it, what’s the point of leaking it?

As Agatha Christie’s detective Hercule Poirot would say, find the person with a motive. In this case, there are two suspects. Clinton and Bloomberg both have something to gain by publicizing the details.

Start with the mayor, who has become a power junkie. There’s lots about the job he doesn’t like, but he couldn’t let go of City Hall after the two-term limit, and bought himself a third term when Quinn lined up the council votes to allow it.

Picking a successor is the ultimate power move in his world, and the mayor long ago seized on Quinn as his heir apparent. He told many people he thought she would be a good mayor, and tried to talk other leading Democrats out of running.

Unspoken, of course, is that he owed her for the third term and for often acting like a deputy mayor instead of the leader of the legislative branch. His loyalty was admirable but, now we know, also conditional.

His willingness to dump Quinn leaves me with mixed emotions. On one hand, I’m delighted that Bloomberg seems to realize that it was at least premature and maybe wrong to settle on her.

He should want her to prove to voters that she’s up to the responsibilities. Anointing her in hopes of shutting down opposition isn’t good for the city and could backfire on Bloomberg’s legacy if she doesn’t win or screws up the job.

On the other hand, Clinton is a very strange alternative. While not the Cathie Black of politics, the former first lady, senator and soon-to-be former secretary of state would almost certainly find City Hall a confining and confounding drag. It’s a working job, not a pit stop for a worn-out globe-trotter.

Still, Clinton might have wanted the conversation revealed. It came during the presidential campaign, but now that the election is over and Clinton is casting about for her next gig, the call reminds people not to forget her.

“For the Clintons, it never hurts to be talked about,” said one insider. “They love it.”

The mayoralty buzz also temporarily trumps nagging questions about Clinton’s role in the Benghazi terror attack, which killed four Americans, including our Libyan diplomat. She has plenty to answer for in what seems a coverup designed to protect the Obama campaign; she is scheduled to testify to Congress this month.

There is also a small chance that the phone call was floated as a trial balloon, to see whether the out-of-the-box idea gets any traction. For now, both participants can have it both ways.

The mayor can downplay the call, as he did yesterday, and Clinton can pretend not to care. That might be the end of the whole episode.

Or maybe not.

Fears of ‘O’mageddon

This will shock supporters of President Obama, but many people say I am too kind and trusting of him. True story.

Reader reaction to Sunday’s column revealed the divide. In dissecting Obama’s reckless behavior since he won re-election, I included the forceful views of a friend.

“Obama has deliberately destroyed the world’s best medical system,” my friend wrote. “He is deliberately destroying the world’s strongest economy and currency. He has destroyed the world’s best political system by governing by executive order. He has started destroying the world’s best military.”

I disagreed, saying I don’t believe the president is trying to destroy America, but that his policies are weakening it.

Apparently, I’m naïve, an idiot, or both.

“Why in the world would you not accept your friend’s assessment?” writes reader Jay Pelc. “Obama isn’t stupid — he’s crazy like a fox and no one could possibly be this bad and mean- spirited of a president unless this was his goal. To him, America is a greedy, colonial, racist country that doesn’t deserve what it has, and he’s taking it upon himself to bring America to its knees.”

Aggie Koch puts it this way: “He is out to redesign our nation from top to bottom into a banana republic. I pray he will not succeed, for if he does, then our children and grandchildren will be living in poverty under the control of the state. And our beloved country will no longer be as we know it.”

Carole Campolo said she usually agrees with me, but not this time.

“Obama is deliberately destroying the pillars of what has made this country great,” she writes. “A reduction in our standard of living is happening at lightning speed as the prices for food and gasoline soar, even without the ObamaCare taxes. Obama has no interest in compromise, and his conduct will be much more than just reckless.”

For America’s sake, I pray they are wrong.

Israel foes’ true colors

In a perverse way, you have to marvel at the arrogance of old Europe. After rejecting Israeli pleas to vote against the Palestinians’ nonmember statehood at the United Nations, Britain France, Spain, Denmark and Sweden are blasting Israel over new settlement plans in the West Bank. They said the construction “threatens the viability of the two-state solution.”

Talk about a double standard. The Palestinians, by going to the UN and refusing to talk directly with Israel, not only threatened the two-state solution, they ensured it won’t happen any time soon.

Then again, nobody in Europe ever lets the facts get in the way of blaming the Jews.

Questionablestorm surge

The president, the mayor and the governors of New York and New Jersey keep getting sky-high approval numbers for how they handled Hurricane Sandy.

Perhaps the public really thinks they all did a great job, but I’d feel more confident of that if the polls included only those who actually needed government help. Their opinions would be more relevant and informed than those of people spared Sandy’s wrath.

Political Linzsanity

We could be wrong about Lindsay Lohan — maybe she is just miscast as an actress. Faced with an IRS lien of $224,000, her reported defense is that it’s “not my fault.”

By blaming others, she shows the talent of a politician and the character of a president. Run, Lindsay, run!